U.S. Aid Efforts Discourage Haitian Entrepreneurs

by Te-Ping Chen · 2010-03-04 12:58:00 UTC
Topics:

Since Haiti's Jan. 12 quake, the U.S. has spent an average of $33.3 million a day to assist in relief and recovery efforts. The funds have helped flood the country with U.S. personnel and equipment, not to mention much-needed bottled water, rice rations, etc.

Is there anything wrong with that picture?

Not if you ask USAID. After such a devastating quake, flying in supplies from the U.S. only made sense. There's no way the agency could have started sourcing materials from battered Haitian suppliers, says USAID (or ensure quality, even if they could).

Now, though, as U.S. donations continue to stream in nearly two months later, Ilia Alsene -- a merchant who sells food and beverages at a stall in Port-au-Prince -- isn't happy. She says she's losing customers because aid agencies keep handing out free food down the street.

From street vendors to factory owners, similar concerns abound. Rice farmers say they're being driven out of business. Alex Zamor, who runs a drinking water factory in Haiti's capital, likewise hasn't been able to rehire his factory's 200 employees -- because, he says, sales are so weak. Does he wish the U.S. and other donors would just go away? "Of course we welcome the relief, but nobody wants to buy water if there's free water on the streets," he tells the Wall Street Journal. He argues that donors should be "helping Haitian companies, instead of companies in Florida."

It's a hard argument to dispute. And certainly, USAID isn't refuting it. But as private security contractors prepare to swarm Miami next week to pitch their services for Haiti-related contracts (for more, see Mike Jones's coverage over at our War and Peace blog), meanwhile, even Haitian farmers are having trouble getting basic support from global donors.

It isn't that USAID doesn't want to work with local suppliers or experts. It does -- and in fact, it's mandated to do so as much as possible by both the U.S. and Haitian governments. But as the WSJ notes, as an anti-corruption measure, USAID is also required to deal only with companies that have a "proven track record and transparency." Which makes it hard to deal with small players, say, like Alsene.

Apart from bureaucratic inertia, a basic disconnect stands between major relief groups and Haitian suppliers. Which is why one Canadian NGO -- Peace Dividend Trust -- has taken on the task of trying to forge relationships between local companies and relief organizations. (To check out their database of Haitian companies, visit www.haiti.buildingmarkets.org.) To bulwark confidence in local companies, they make individual visits to each Haitian company before recommending them. It's an important initiative, one that deserves more attention.

In the meantime, U.S. officials say that more will be done for local producers soon -- citing, for example, the fact that the UN's World Food Program plans to launch an attempt to buy as much local food as possible.

That's great, but as we've written about here, unless international donors like the U.S. step up support for Haitian agriculture soon, it's unclear where these stocks of local food will be coming from -- certainly not from crops that haven't yet been planted.

Photo Credit: USAID IMAGES

Te-Ping Chen Te-Ping Chen is a freelance writer and U.S. Truman Scholar whose writing has appeared in the Nation Magazine, the South China Morning Post magazine, Le Soir, and Slate.com.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Private Security Companies Prepare to Consume Haiti
NEXT STORY:
Campaign about Apple Factories in China Gains Wide and Diverse Support

COMMENTS (0)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.